IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20633 of 2025 ======================================================

Saikat Samanta Son of Tarapada Samanta, Resident of Village-

Champadanga, P.S.- Tarkeshwar, District- Hubali (West Bengal).

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Development of Registration and Excise, Government of Bihar.

2. The District Magistrate, Jehanabad.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad.

4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Jehanabad.

5. The S.H.O., Excise Police Station, District- Jehanabad.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudhir Singh, Adv.

Mr. Ambrish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Saharsh Kumar, Adv. Mr.Priyesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader 04 ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)

3 16-02-2026 The present writ petition has been filed for release of Hyundai Venue Car bearing Registration No. WB-16BJ-0523, Chassis No. MALFD81BLNM360819 and Engine No. G4LANM233775 in favour of the petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle in question.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid vehicle of the petitioner has been seized on account of registration of Jehanabad Excise P.S.Case No. 640/2025, dated

8.10.2025 under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2016”) against three persons as also against the owner of the vehicle in question on account of recovery of 3 liters of illicit foreign liquor.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date the petitioner has not received any notice regarding initiation of confiscation proceedings and in fact, the Respondents are also silent about it in the counter affidavit, filed in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that admittedly, the petitioner was not travelling in the aforesaid vehicle and he had given the same to his co-villagers, who had admitted that they had purchased 3 liters of illicit foreign liquor on the way for the purposes of partying. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner is not having any complicity in the alleged occurrence, hence a lenient view of the matter be taken.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent-State has submitted that though it is true that the petitioner was not found travelling in the vehicle in question, nonetheless 3 liters of illicit foreign liquor has been recovered from the vehicle in question, hence the vehicle has rightly been seized under the provisions of the Act, 2016.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we find from the law laid down by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunaina vs. The State of Bihar and others reported in 2024 SCC online Pat. 851 that involvement or connivance of the owner of the vehicle in illegal use of the vehicle for ferrying illicit liquor is an essential prerequisite for confiscation of the vehicle or imposing any penalty for release of the vehicle. As far as the present case is concerned, admittedly the counter affidavit, filed by the respondent-State does not show that either the petitioner is an accused in Jehanabad Excise P.S. Case No. 640 of 2025 or he is in any way involved in commission of the alleged offence.

6. We further find that seizure of the vehicle, which had taken place on 8.10.2025 and is still underseize up to this date is quite harsh, considering the meager quantity of illicit liquor i.e. 3 liters recovered from the aforesaid vehicle in question. Hence, we deem it fit and proper to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case for issuing direction for release of the vehicle in questi